SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 Hi Guys I would like to get an Idea of those who are intrested in playing scenarios where you have total control over purchases, rather than historical scenarios. DOnt get me wrong I'm, looking forward to the scenarios - but for competitive games I prefer this method and was wondering who else would be intrested in this style of Play. ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 The basis for this already exists in the DYO feature where you have the PC randonly generate a map(it does a great job too) and then you have point totals based on the type of action, then you just go shopping for what you want. The trick is to allow this design process to be participated in by both players at the beginning rather than by the game designer. (easy for a hotseat/LAN game but hard for a net pbem gae I think given the current way it's written.) Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 22, 1999 Author Share Posted December 22, 1999 UGGh I think you misunderstood the question man :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 I certainly would be. I found that in CC2, this was the most fun. The opponent would make a scenario in Battlemaker with no units but only the number of points available per side. You would go in and look at the map and then decide on what units that you wanted. This allowed you to try some different strategies (some wacky ie. buy 6 or M5's and banzaii). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lokesa Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 I really enjoyed the style SS refers to and am sure with all the veteran CC players we'll see many scenario's just like that. What was great about that was the strategy began before any units were placed on the field. Especially when skill level's were fairly even and the players had a history, oftentimes unit selection could win or lose the game. For example buying 5 or 6 stuarts was great against a balanced force but if your opponent went big AKA Jagd you were in for a rough go of it. Likewise Going big had it's drawbacks vs certain force selections as well, etc, etc. All in all, the ability to at least change the force selection game the game some extended replayability keeping it on my HD for a long time. I expect CM, with it's editor, to stick around for years to come Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 22, 1999 Author Share Posted December 22, 1999 I agree Lokesa the strategy level dramatically increased when you had control over unit purchases- it could win or lose a game if you did'nt purchase wisely. This system will smoke CC in terms of this style of play IMHO and I cant wait:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 As long as unit avail. is based on historical reality/rarity it is great. It just get tiring fighting Germans that NEVER field any tank lighter than a Panther...not to mention VERY unrealistic. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 22, 1999 Author Share Posted December 22, 1999 That is what the historical scenarios are for- Point based scenarios allow total control over unit purchases; compensations are made pointwise to deal with the german heavy armor as they were in CC2 - this game will make it alot easier to balance the fact germ players like to field heavy armor; but as far as realism is concerned point based is unrealistic in a historical aspect to start with - I dont recall any instances where a germ officer was given total control over exactlywhat force he had to work with in a singe battle < but perhaps I'm wrong ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 12-22-99).] [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 12-22-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard III Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 Wouldn't this system allow for really silly battles? In Steel Panthers I, when bored, I used to do a random 'Japanese Assault' scenario in which I would buy truckloads of .50 cals, M16s and Chaffees and then mow down the onrushing hordes like something out of WWI. Good for a no-stress cakewalk, but hardly approaching anything that would have been seen in WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 23, 1999 Author Share Posted December 23, 1999 Well if for example I hage 1000 pts to spend and you have 1000pts if I buy tanks and you buy 50 cal mgs - is it the scenario being silly? THis thread was set up to find people that are interested in playing CC2 Battlemaker Style play for daily ladder competition purposes, those interested in recreating historical battles are free to do so, as I also will be playing them but for competitive purposes I find it probably an unlikely style of play. SS_PanzerLeader...out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 SS_PanzerLeader: It all depends on how you view the 'points'. Do the solely reflect the combat value of the particular unit in the given game? Or do they also take into account the rarity of the particular unit? An alternative to 'jacking-up' points on rare units is to adjust their rarity when forces are purchased (as in CC3...to a certain extent) and/or make each ADDITIONAL purchase of a 'rare' unit more expensive. I have used both systems in miniature wargaming for decades. Your conviction that no commander would be able to 'buy' his units anyway so why not let the player just buy whatever they want does not convince me. A single violation of 'reality' for game's fun sake does not justify a possibly larger and preventable violation of 'reality'. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 23, 1999 Author Share Posted December 23, 1999 Scott no offense intended but I asked for people interested in playing Battlemaker style play no on is forcing you to play this way to each his own- but there are tuns of players that enjoy the way battlemakers in CC2 worked. IF you are into historical rarity then CM has a place for that but that is not why I started this thread. ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 12-23-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 24, 1999 Share Posted December 24, 1999 The only thing that DYO doesn't allow you to do right now is look at the map ahead of time and load a premade map to play on. The former isn't being done for game reasons, the latter is something we plan to add at some point. Other than that, everything you are asking for is in the DYO system. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scurlock Posted December 24, 1999 Share Posted December 24, 1999 Looking forward to piont system buy your own clashes. As for unrealistic battles: as long as unit cost is realistic bring on the panthers. When I played SP PBEM I loved it when my apponents spent there money on a small #s of expensive units. I'd simply overwhelm them with my good (but not great) cheap stuff. A Panther will be more productive in this much more realistic environment, but you get my point. One can also eliminate hokey unit combinations by makeing agreements with your apponents about unit purchases. For example, you could agree to no 88's on the feild, limit the # of uncommon tanks allowed, etc. It's all just a matter of communicating with your apponent and coming to a mutual agreement on what's ballanced. Then again if you like hokey you can make agreements such as no infantry etc. This should be a player issue, not a game design issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwcanuck Posted December 24, 1999 Share Posted December 24, 1999 In Close Combat 4 you cannot choose your Battle Group which makes single game H2H encounters those that each side will know each others Oob unrealistic. I hear in CC5 Atomic will probably go back to a partial selection of forces like in CC2 which will please most vet CC players. Designed battlemaker maps for CM with a partial or full selection of forces based on historical accuracy would be great for CM ladder or tourney matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted December 25, 1999 Share Posted December 25, 1999 Well, the description of the thread was HEAD COUNT, so let me be the 1st to actually respond appropriately.. Count me in, Foobar out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 SS_PanzerLeader: No offence taken but, you apparently have missed my point entirely. Historical rarity IS in CC2 and CC3. CC4 uses a different system of purchases and I don't remember about cC1. So, bottom line is that the CC games (generally) have have historical rarity built into them and always have had it. So what are you saying? Are you suggesting that it should NOT be in CM? Less restrictive in CM? Sorry but you lost me on that last one... ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 28, 1999 Author Share Posted December 28, 1999 I beg to differ Scott but as I have played CC2 extensively I must say that you are very mistaken inthe fact historical rarity is taken into account in battlemakers. In fact the game is still on my drive, CC3 is also the same with Battlemakers although I'm not sure if there is any point adjustment as i deleted the game cause it sucks. cc4 I have no idea- butthe whole point of my origianl question is for point based games -- not historical ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 SS_PanzerLeader: Sorry to disagree but rarity is in both CC2 and CC3. The units point values do not change but the actual availability of the units is dependent on the rarity value in the data tables. This is what I was talking about above (please re-read this post), rarity can be show in (at least) two ways: direct adjustment of point values or a 'hard' restriction on units actual availability in the game. The rarity can be turned on or off in CC3 but I think in CC2 you just get less of the more rare units. I can assure you the data is in the tables because I have edited many times. Just open the data files and look for yourself if you don't beleive me. I worked on the REALRED mod for CC3 and one of the first things we did was to tweak these values to make tanks more rare and the rare tank types very rare. I have also done a few mods for CC2, the rarity values are in the original games in the tables, they are just too 'weak' to be noticed by most people...including, apparently you. But I guess you answered my question. You don't seem want any restriction based on historical rarity for 'battle maker' games. That's fine, to each his own. Thanks for the feedback. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 29, 1999 Author Share Posted December 29, 1999 SCOTT - historical availaibility plays no part in a battlemaker set up in cc2 for point If i have 500 points on each side i can buy whatever I choose no limitations ; if i gave bvoth sides 1000 pts same thing . This is what i was talking about for Cm and it appears you 've realized that now . I'm interested in historical stuff to, but feel they are not good for competitive play. This issue was argued and resolved in ladder play for cc2 also, with the point system with no limitations being the victor. ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 29, 1999 Share Posted December 29, 1999 Hehe... both SSPzLdr and Scott are correct To be clear, CM does not have a "rarity" factor, but rather an avaiability period. You won't be able to purchase a Pershing in July 1944 for example. The cost is based on the vehicle's lethality, tempered by a rough sense of comonality. So a very lethal, but common, vehicle is priced lower than a very lethal and rare vehicle. Upshot is that when you play a DYO game you select the month/year. You are then able to buy any unit available to that side in accordance with the other DYO settings (i.e. no armor if you are playing an Infantry battle). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 29, 1999 Author Share Posted December 29, 1999 sounds great thanks Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPeng Posted December 30, 1999 Share Posted December 30, 1999 Ok, So what you are saying is that "blah blah blah blahdy blah blah blah?" Do I have that right Mr SS PansyEater? If so, I would have to aggree with you like a billion percent because you are so WONDERFUL! Also, I think buying stuff and setting it up on the map and then doing your damndest with whatever the hell you bought trying to completely destroy the rat bastard you are fighting is EXACTLY the kind of thing I like to do...Count me in. and say your prayers you scum sucking son of a motherless goat. Sure there are plenty of these guys out there moaning and groaning about historical accuracy...what the hell do i care about that? that's why we have EXPERTS doing all the research and picking nits and worrying about unit avaialability. I AM A MORON AND I LIKE TO KILL TANKS !!! thats why i want to play CM. Sure the graphics are pretty and the game engine is fabulous. I don't care. I want to buy what the game lets me buy and then try to kill you or Elvis or any other rotten swine out there that wants to try to kill me. How does that sound sissy boy? Peng out BTW - what? your little barbs offensive? ha. you are such a girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 30, 1999 Author Share Posted December 30, 1999 Ohh my Mr Ping is in rare form, lol too bad it isn't his better form or else he may have made someone crack a smile. Ok after this you no longer deserve the title of Mr Ping, from here on out I'll refer to you as "Mrs Thang" (with heavy southern drawl)......... Mrs Thang , I do realize that considring your latest failures in the plastic surgery ward have left you a breast-less wonder - yet your undeniable urge as a cross-dresser has yet to be squelched -Although this bout of schizophrenia is in fact extremely evident, I do wish you would save your adolation for that other (meaning other than yourself) impersonator Elvis. I appreciate the fact you think I'm wonderful but truely I'm not looking for a date - although smearing your little fairy self all over the battlefield shall be quite the fulfilling moment - ahhh yes i did say moment didn't I? You do realize that all it will be is a moment don't you? oh silly me of course youd don't I'd get more respnse for a geriatric - So let me spell it out for ya - it'll be a moment that haunts you until you suck the last drop of geritol from your sipper cup. Have you yet recovered from that trouncing Elvis gave you before the holidays - that little, oh can we please have a truce whine was just so..... touching. Well when ya get your christmas ornaments back where they should be feel free to accept that challenge I posted way back when fire was invented. Until then stop you snivelling and please do something about that dress. PS for those not realizing this this is a taunt in good fun ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPeng Posted December 30, 1999 Share Posted December 30, 1999 good one ss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts